tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN April 12, 2016 12:30pm-2:31pm EDT
it's not creating global public growth. secretary lew: i think it's a mistake to think of any of these with oneons as dealing challenge. dealing with maintaining basic financial stability in a country is certainly core to what the i.m.f. is, even though it does many things beyond that. the world bank has traditionally helped shore up systems which meet the standards that are set by entities like the i.m.f. to be on a sustainable path. i think having multiple points of access to make sure that you avoid the destabilizing consequences of having either cyclical or price shock effects that lead to economic and political destabilization is very important. it's not that you choose between doing climate change or the other. the question is how do you strike the right balance? i think that one of the things that the world bank has done over the last few years is
looked at how to manage its resources creatively, to gain a bit of reach through better management of its financial capabilities. to be in more places. that's a good thing. if you look at the countries on the cusp of kind of shifting from developing to developed countries, they tend to still be places where you find poverty. so it's not as if once your overall economy reaches the next level, the benefits of that are necessarily as broadly shared as needs to be. sebastian: if the government of a middle income country wants to reduce poverty, let's take china or india, it can borrow commercially to do projects which are focused on poverty reduction. having the bank there, the world bank there, to be an additional source -- either the government wants to do these projects or
doesn't. secretary lew: i think that there is a period in that transition when the government wanting to do it and the ability to do it are not totally matched up. that's where i think having international financial institutions, this is not concessional financing. i think we have to maintain the principle that below market rate lending is restricted to the poorest countries. that is something that comes under pressure on a regular basis. sebastian: let me switch from development -- secretary lew: it's also important to develop new instruments. we are seeing now in refugee crises that there are geopolitical situations that create surges of need and there aren't necessarily the tools in place to deal with where those needs show up in a timely way. one of the discussions that's
under way now is how to make sure you have a facility that can step in in a case like a refugee crisis where in one sense it's a global problem, but in another sense it has a very local dimension because people end up in a concentrated place or set of places. i think that's an important conversation for the 21st crentry. we are seeing right now the challenge of dealing with that. that's something that institutions like the world bank are set up to think through. we are doing it now in a way that's adapting old tools for a new challenge. that's why this idea of adaptation is so key. you have to be nimble enough to deal with the problems you face today and you're likely to face in the future. not always looking backwards. sebastian: on the subject of financial crisis management, your essay and your remarks both drew attention to the i.m.f.'s role after 2008. argue ink probably
bilateral swaps between the federal reserve and other economies that were in desperate need of dollars were bigger aggregate and more decisive. and that is a trend that ain't going away. the shared volume of cross border claims has grown so much that even an expanded i.m.f. with more resources is going to have trouble being being big enough to deal with what -- trouble being big enough to deal with what happened to south korea when suddenly there is a massive flight to safety in the u.s. and dollars flow back into the u.s. then you have to have the fed recycling them. as you think about that, in the next big financial crisis globally, the i.m.f. will be there to deal with medium-sized things like ukraine. but in a bigger sense, big crises, isn't it really a case of central banks dealing with each other? secretary lew: the question of fed swap lines, i'll leave to
the fed, which has the authority to make those decisions. but i think if you look at the financial crisis and the response to it, the i.m.f. played a critical role. it was part of country plans in a number of critical instances where if you had not stabilized those economies we would have seen a new bottom that was far worse than the bottom we ended up hitting. there was a sense that there was somewhere to go, which psychologically had a very important effect. and i think if you look at the role of the united states, i don't think it is a defensible notion that the united states is going to respond to every global crisis on its own, unilaterally. while the ukraine sample may be a medium-sized contry, look at the numbers that were involved. $17 billion i.m.f. program.
we have done three $1 billion loan guarantees, scoring terms are less than $1 billion budget exposure. the leverage we got by being part of a larger effort is just the difference between making a difference and not. ukraine's economy turned from negative to neutral to maybe positive faster than anyone thought. and our loan guarantee a loan wouldn't be enough to accomplish that. one of the things that happened since the financial crisis is the i.m.f. has developed new tools. the flexible credit lines are being used in a different way and more effectively. with quota reform we have recapitalized the i.m.f., taking the money and put it in the main fund itself. so i think right now the i.m.f. has considerable resources. we do have to ask the question, always, what would be the consequence of the next crisis?
you don't have the luxury of knowing the precise contours of a crisis until it's upon you, which is why you have to have the tools in place, but also the adaptibility. look what happened after the financial crisis? the new arrangement to borrow was funded quickly to put in the i.m.f., the facility that could deal with that crisis. if you had to create an i.m.f. out of whole cloth, you couldn't have put that in place so quickly. and i don't believe that any one contry, not even the united states, could have had thatment of firepower. sebastian: you are making your essay a case and persuasive one that funding the government's advantage that the fund and the bank begin with, you are allowing emerging nations to have larger voice and stake in the international system. i'm wondering if you would apply the same logic to the question of global reserve currencies?
right now you have the dollar very dominant. you have the chinese explicitly saying they don't like that and they would prefer to internationalize it and make it a rival, another curncy. you have -- curncy. you have others expeacing -- expressing frustration with the dominance of the dollar. it's a sentiment that's out there. would it be in the u.s. national interest in more global funding, including by the private sector, a debtace in the form of other than dollar debt? secretary lew: i think it is a fair statement that at the moment there is really no likely competitor to take the place of the united states and the dollar. the reason i raise the question in the essay is that we can't just think about the next year or two. we have to think in decades. 10 years, 20 years, 30 years.
and anyone sitting in a discussion like this in the 1940's or 1950's wouldn't have predicted a world that looks exactly the way it does today. i think that we have to look at the role of the dollar both in terms of the global economy and what it means in terms of giving the united states an extraordinary amount of power and authority in the world. and treat that as an asset to be protected. i raise some issues of things that are potential threats. if we look like we are stepping back from the international economic leadership role, that invites others to fill a void. if we use tools like sanctions in way that overdoes it in terms of unilateralism and doesn't maintain the kind of unity that we have had, both in the case of iran sanctions and north korea sanctions, that's a challenge. we always have to maintain the ability of the u.s. to act unilaterally in our own national
interest. we have to do it in a way that's mindful of the fact that we have something that gives us power and leverage and economic strength and that's something we need to also keep an eye on, protecting. i think you look at the current kind of global economic situation and probably you have to say today it will be a longer period of time that we have than you would have said maybe five years ago. because the united states has recovered from the great recession in a way that really demonstrates the resilience of the u.s. economy and notwithstanding the noise of our political process, the ability of our political system to respond in a timely manner. i think when you look at a currency like the r&b, the challenge for china to make the kinds of changes it needs to make to have its currency be truly convertible. to have its markets being truly opened to foreign investment and
to services and goods from abroad. i think that they have made progress. it's clear that they have made progress. but they are not all the way there. they still have work to do. and the reason that's an area where we engage in considerable amount of detail is it's an area where china's economic leadership knows they have to make these kinds of changes for china's economy to be where it needs to be in 10, 20, 30 years. it's an area of common interest, potentially, but potentially also of conflict. sebastian: let me because your answer is provoking and i want to ask one more question and come to the members and udience. your essay does a good jove highlighting the dilemma because of the position of the u.s. dollar and global system it gives one the opportunity to exercise sanctions power. this is what future presidents will be glad to have because
it's short of war. so that is all stipulated and point well taken. the balance between use of sanctions and not overuse. if you use it too much you will incentivize people to move outside the dollar system. i'm thinking about a different dilemma. namely whoever is the reserve -- the issue of the reserve currency is issuing state assets that will protect value during a crisis so people around the world are going to want that safe asset as assurance, they are going to buy lots of u.s. dollar debt because it's safe and because it becomes easy to issue u.s. dollar debt. the u.s. by almost definition gives you too much dollar debt. and as a result of the cycles becomes the it problem. and the way -- one consequence
of that position is the constant inflow of capital into the u.s. which makes the dollar stronger, which creates the current account deficit, which creates these global imbalances which then you would like the i.m.f. to -- right? some of the things that trouble us in the international order, excess u.s. indebtedness, global imbalances, and so forth, do have the origins in an extreme reliance on the dollar globally. my question, would it be better to encourage -- you can imagine policies that would encourage private actors to use other capital markets more. you can make it more restrictive. harder for corporate to come issue u.s. dollar bonds. secretary lew: i think that the u.s. financial markets have the leadership role they have in the
world because of all of the things that make the united states the united states. it's our political stability, it's our resilience, it's the depth and liquidity of our market, particularly our treasury markets. those are all goods things. i don't want to change that. i want to protect that. that's really one of the main points that i'm making. i think when it comes to fiscal policy, we ought not to take our ability to borrow infinitely as license to borrow and i have had two tours at the office of management and budget. during one of them we ran a balanced budget and a surplus. during the second we dug our way out of a very deep hole that we got into in the intervening years. we need to look on the horizon. we have made great progress in this administration. reducing the deficit by 3/4, percentage of g.d.p. stabilizing the debt as a percentage of g.d.p. creating a window where we now have time to deal with the
longer term fiscal challenges on a stable foundation. that's something that's going to be a challenge that has to be undertaken anew. but i don't think our ability to borrow infinitely ought to be viewed as a justification for ignoring that over the long term maintaining stable, fiscal policy is very important to our national strength. we have achieved a great deal in this administration to repair the damage that was done both by policies and by recession. going forward it's going to be responsibility for a new team to take a stable economy and look at the period beyond the horizon. sebastian: it's not just a government debt. secretary lew: private and -- we saw a period where, frankly, we were seeing inadequate access to debt in this country. it's only in the last few years
that we have seen businesses and individuals have the kind of better access to credit than they -- that they should have. families have improved their balance sheets. businesses are sitting on a great deal of capital right now. i think the current practices, if anything, are on the recovering part of the curve. where it goes beyond is a question. we are a long way away from the kind of easy borrowing that we saw in the decade before the financial crisis. i think the challenge we have is, how do you make sure that you don't lend to individuals and firms that are not creditworthy just because they want to borrow. on the other hand, how do we make sure that individuals and firms that are creditworthy have access to the credit they need both for their family needs and invest particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises? we are not seeing as much
investment as i would like to see in some of these areas. i wish that the -- we have tried to ease the credit box because we think that for mortgage lending purposes, if you have a very solid credit history, you ought to have access to a mortgage. that's different than a subprime loan. same thing with a small business -- entrepreneur wants to expand their business and the two aren't completely delinked because one of the ways that entrepreneurs typically had access to credit was through mortgage products. we still have work to do. but that's moving in the right direction. i think we are a ways away from having to worry about kind of an overhang of loose credit. sebastian: let's get right to it. >> thank you very much. barbara from the atlantic council where i run a program on iran. i'm going to read this question because i'm not banker.
but i spoke to one who is. we have seen a lot of problems with sanctions relief for iran. is part of the difficulty because they have dollar assets ow in banks in china and india that they are having trouble accessing and using? or is it because banks find it difficult to do transactions without some reference to the dollar? and don't you need to reinstitute at least a limited u-turn so iran can avail itself of its own money which is sitting in primarily asian banks? secretary lew: we have been very clear that nuclear sanctions on iran that limited access to iran's reserves and financial institutions were lifted when iran complied with its nuclear related obligations under the joint comprehensive plan of action. we have been clear in going around the world making that point both government to
government and to financial institutions. iran has many challenges in doing business. some of them have to do with iran's own business practices. some of them have to do with iran's other activities outside of the nuclear arena where they continue to engage in supporting terrorism, regional destabilization, missile testing that is violating norms. and human rights problems that they have in their own contry. so there are still sanctions on iran in those areas while the nuclear sanctions have been lifted. i think that we have to be clear. iran complied with the nuclear agreement, therefore the nuclear sanctions are lifted. i think that that is a process that is becoming more and more clear. and we will keep our part of the bargain there. but the u.s. financial system is not open to iran. and that is not something that
is going to change. so the challenge is going to be how to work through an international financial system that is complicated, where there are -- is a lot of attention paid to what u.s. law requires. i think our obligation is to be clear, which i have tried very hard to do and our team has tried very hard to do. if you look at what makes a sanctions regime work, sanctions regime works if in order to get relief from the sanctions, the government changes its policy. so the government of iran changes policy, that's why we lifted sanction that is were nuclear sanctions. the government of -- sanctions that were nuclear sanctions. the government of iran has not changed its behavior. there are still other sanctions in place. navigating through that will be a challenge, but one where i think clarity will help. we are not proposing that the u-turn be changed.
>> thank you, steve, beacon policy advisors. mr. secretary, given the premise that global leadership begins here at home, like to ask for a puerto rican he debt crisis. i know your department has been working closely with the house committee on legislation. sounds like we'll get a bill today. what we are hearing is republicans in congress to get onboard will probably push for a weaker restructuring authority where they have collective action clauses plus the litigation stay. and if you combine that with the debt moratorium that the island itself has been preparing, is that something that treasury can get behind? secretary lew: there is still an ongoing process. people were working through the
weekend on it. i don't believe it's completed yet. what we have been very clear about is that the only way for puerto rico to resolve the situation it faces is for there to be a comprehensive restructuring of the debt. along with that there needs to be a very strong oversight board to make sure that puerto rico continues on a path, gets on a path, and stays on a path that can be sustained. there are a lot of details, but when you get down to the bottom line, the question to us is, does that restructuring authority work? it has to work or it's not going to be acceptable. it won't -- can't be something that you put a label on, but in the marketplace doesn't work. there's still some open issues. we have had a very good working relationship on a bipartisan basis. working for the many, many technical issues. but there are still a number very difficult issues that are open that if resolved in the right way will lead to a bipartisan support, but if not resolve in the right way, just won't work. we are not going to support
something that doesn't work. >> do i have a question. if it's ok with you i would yield to the doctor. >> ok. >> mr. secretary, you have been very clear about the connection between u.s. economic leadership and the trade and international organizations. but u.s. economic leadership is a very abstract concept and it's pretty clear to people in this room it's not clear to the eneral public, indeed it seems to conflict with the people who are cheering let's make america great again. my basic question is, how do you establish the connection between u.s. economic leadership in the world and a strong u.s. economy,
which is clearly what everybody wants? secretary lew: it's obviously a very important question. we know the jobs supported by trade pay better than jobs that are not supported by trade. we know that a world where markets are closed to the united states is going to lead to a less well performing u.s. economy. that's not necessarily broadly embraced now. i think, frankly, one of the things we have to do is be more clear about what are the standards that are going to be in place in countries like the t.p.p. countries that sign on. what does it mean to extend higher labor standards in a country like vietnam? knees are -- these are somewhat abstract questions, but if you have high labor standards in the united states, and low labor standards in other countries, it means the other countries are always goes r going to have lower costs and be able to outcompete you. as the other countries raise their standards and meet our kinds of labor concerns and our
kinds of environmental concerns and our kinds of business practice concerns, the playing field becomes more level for the u.s. to compete better. i actually think one of the challenges we have is how to make sure things like trade adjustment assistance don't just get public attention at the moment when there's an effort to pass a trade promotion authority bill or a trade agreement. there has to be attention on those issues in the intervening years. we tend to have challenges getting our system to focus on these things except at the moment when we are trying to get approval for trade legislation. i think the fact that we could get a majority of congress to support trade promotion authority just a few months ago is quite significant. i think all of us who believe that the benefits of u.s. economic leadership are profound, both in economic and geopolitical terms, have more work to do to make the case to
people who have legitimate worries about an economy that has for decades now not necessarily provided the kind of opportunity to middle class workers and their families that they want to have and they have a right to expect. that's not all because of trade. i think trade has become one of the things that's easy to point to, but between globalization and technological change and income concentration, we have seen an awful lot of change in our country in the last 25 years. and i think if we address those root issues by having better education, more skills for the economy of the future, infrastructure that will make it easier to get to the jobs you need, if you don't live near the jobs that are available, the burden of getting a job is hard. if you can't travel there
because there's no mass transit or the roads take two hours instead of 35, 40 minutes, it becomes a real hurdle to your own personal mobility. we have a lot of demetic things we could do to concentrate on building our economy in a way that gives people real confidence in their own economic future. i actually think most of the kinds of things i just described are the kinds of things which you can have bipartisan consensus on. if it was in the context of an overall fiscal approach where you had resources to address problems that have bipartisan support to address. the challenge on infrastructure isn't that people don't want better roads and better ports and airports, it's how to pay for it. so really comes back as you and i both know to where's the money come from? and hopefully the work of the last several years has moved us back towards a more mainstream conversation of those issues.
we saw at the end of last year and i certainly hope that continues. correctn: she's plainly that parts of the primary debate is very powerful skepticism about globalization. it's also true in europe that animosity towards economic institutions is at an all-time high. the very cohesion of the european union is in doubt. the interesting thing is that we are having this conversation. in the sense that i can remember some of your predecessors who would be making a speech essentially saying that the brettonwood institutions have allowed themselves to become irrelevant bordering on archaic, and they need to be either scrapped or radically changed. i would be asking the question, but they have value in it. you have taken the opposite position wholeheartedly
supporting them and supporting international system. and i'm in the position of probing you to defend that position. i think there is an interesting flip. secretary lew: i can point to two things in this last year that kind of -- actually answer alice's question but address yours. we made enormous progress in the g-20 this year on base erosion and profit shifting. that's closing the tax loopholes that allow the legal shifting of money to lower, no-tax environments. we have seen just in the last week the outrage of people around the world because those kinds of opportunities exist. we in the united states have taken a leadership role in doing things to try and make it more transparent who the real owners are, putting in place tax information sharing agreements that make it easier for tax authorities to cooperate. getting the g-20 to agree in this area, we made more progress in the last year than in the last 20 years on that issue.
on things like the financial action task force, working on a global basis to try and put real barriers in the way of anyone trying to use the international financial system for illicit or maligned purposes. we have a lot more work to do, but we had a meeting at the u.n. security council in december where there was a unanimous resolution on the subject and it was the united states and russia jointly sponsoring it. so we have work to do. it's not that we have achieved everything we need to. nor that anyone sitting here in my role will ever be able to say we achieved everything. we have to adapt to the challenges of the future. if we could address this issue of taxes becoming stateless income, income that never gets taxed, i think it would help address some of the international sentiment that the system doesn't seem fair. .
we'd have to demonstrate it by aking real progress. >> hi. congressional quarterly. a follow on to barbara's question earlier. there have been a couple bills filed in congress to address the u-turn concern to make it illegal. what are your thoughts on those measures given you have just said there are no plans to allow limited u-turns at this point? secretary lew: what we have said, the president said about 10 days ago is that we will work on an international basis to make sure that financial institutions and other governments understand what the lifting of the nuclear sanctions mean and to provide the guidance that's necessary for iran to get access to resources and transactions. it has a right to with the nuclear sanctions being lifted and that's what we're doing. i'm not going to address
hypotheticals in terms of any other actions. sebastian: let's go over here. in front of you. >> hi. david, interamerican development bank group. thank you so much. let me ask you a question that broadens sebastian's question earlier. those of us in the business focus on our hard won successes but outside of washington, the view that development is broken has probably never been more widespread and not without reason. now we look back in history and see wave after wave of competing approaches to development, have not proveably had an effect and what's had more effect than anything were the efforts of the chinese party, the communist party in china to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. so this pessimism isn't all
bed. it's encouraged the private sector to step up with a whole movement of impact investment. but what i'm wondering is, given your understanding of bilateral aid from your previous position, the state department, and your understanding of multilateral efforts given where you sit now, are there any deep changes that might break the cycle of development in effectiveness that you see? secretary lew: well, first, i wouldn't accept the premise that our experience in development has been ineffective. it has not been perfect and certainly things have worked better than others but the countries where you've seen the biggest rise out of poverty have been very much the countries that have been beneficiaries of lending from institutions like the world bank and in many cases recipients of bilateral aid. i was that the -- when at the state department, what i
saw when i looked around the world was a big challenge of coordinating different streams of development assistance that in a host country it wasn't always clear what the goals were and who was working with whom. working even within the united states, we tried very hard to coordinate the bilateral and the multilateral efforts that we have under way so that we have maximum advantage. it's something that we looked at when i was at the state department from the perspective of having responsibility for the bilateral assistance. where i sit now, largely responsible for the multilateral assistance. look at something like climate change. look at the conference, the funding for development. i don't think you could have imagined 10 years ago that you would have had a gathering like the funding for development conference where three principles came out of it as being equally critical. one was that there's a need for
ongoing official development assistance. secondly, that there's a need for host government investment in the same priorities. and third, that there has to be public-private partnership in order to get the full leverage necessary to achieve the goals. i think that is a very important foundational lament to the cop 21 agreements in paris, and it's an important concept as we go forward. you can't look at any of these things in isolation. the question is, when you put them together, do they give you the results that you're looking for? i think it's a mistake to think that everything has been a great success, but it's certainly a big mistake to everything has been a big failure. we have to adapt and learn what we've accomplished and build on that for the future. sebastian: all right. go back to steve. should be rewarded. [laughter] >> thanks. steve, george washington university.
in your essay in your remarks, you highlighted the work of the world bank on climate change. the question i wanted to ask you is about the world bankroll in human rights. recent -- bank role in human rights. recently, one criticized the world bank for being a human rights-free zone. so i wanted to ask you your reaction to that criticism and what you think the proper role for human rights in world bank lending is. secretary lew: one of the u.s. interests in the world bank in recent years has been to make sure that there is a proper focus on the conditions in the countries, both in terms of human rights but also in terms of the impact on the community of the investments that are being made. you know, that is something that we have been pushing with a great deal of support from
congress and i think it's something that helps guide the world bank as it moves forward. it is a challenge in many ountries to get along the path of progress on an economic, political, human rights field all at the same time, but that's not an excuse for not pushing in the right direction nd for having standards of what is acceptable progress. so it's an area where we'll continue to push. i don't think it's fair to say in all the countries where the world bank lends the practice is are yet where they need to get. these are countries that are developing countries in every regard in many cases, and our bilateral programs, you know, we tie aid to progress and we press for those kinds of standards in international
settings as well. sebastian: last question. we go with the lady in the green shirt. >> thank you, secretary lew, for coming to speak with us. a question you sort of alluded to in the profit shifting scheme, i guess what i'd like to push you on is that there's a sense -- you know, when i think of america's economic leadership, i think of transparency, i think of respect for small and medium enterprise. when i talk to my colleagues abroad, they have a pretty different picture right now. they see a great place to hide illicit cash with no questions asked. the big scandal in the panama papers was less you can do this in panama but so many americans didn't need to do in in panama because they codo it in delaware and nevada. i'd love to hear what you'd say to the critics about the credibility gap there. secretary lew: i think that we have a tax system that is
amongst the best in the world and is a standard that others aspire to in terms of its independence and its reach. have put in place the ability to see what people's different income streams are. if it's not subject to tax, at's policy issue, not transparency issue. you know, we are working globally to make sure that there's a sharing of tax information. the word fatka is now an international word because the united states adopted the policy of making it obligatory in all countries to share tax information so that you can't hide income. we're not all the way there. the base erosion work we did
was critically important, but i seem to keep coming back to the meetings in -- out of sababo. the other thing that came up in those meetings which was important is how weak the systems are internationally in so many countries and how much technical assistance countries need to build the kinds of tax authorities so that you can work with them to make sure those gaps don't develop. we've pledged to double our office of technical assistance support. we work closely with the i.m.f. and other bilateral partners, but we're making real progress there. we have more work to do. i think that the idea that there's different rules depending where you are in the hierarchy is unacceptable. everyone has to follow the law, and if the laws permit the movement of income to countries
or places where they're inadequately taxed, thenes that a tax policy question we have to address which is one of the questions we've proposed business tax reform so that the u.s. broken tax system will be fixed and we would tax all u.s. income wherever it is in the world at a reasonable level and close the loopholes that make our system as broken as it is. we right now have a tax system that forces companies to look for ways to avoid statutory tax rate that's the highest in the developed world even though our effective tax rate is about average because of the impact of the system of deductions and credits, which some were worthy when they were put in place. many are -- some weren't necessarily useful when they were put in place. [laughter] secretary lew: so we have a lot of work to do. but i think our economic leadership in this area is still profoundly important and in the base erosion and profit
shifting debate, we've been right at the heart of it globally. so the world has more work to do here. we collectively has more work to do here, but i think, you know, we've made progress and we will continue to make progress. sebastian: well, mr. secretary, you've taken us from brettenwood to the panama papers with many stops along the way. a pleasure to have you here. secretary lew: thank you. [applause] cop cop cappingscappings -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
virus. and, again, the house gaveling in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. stay on c-span for live coverage. >> madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states -- >> in road to the white house news, the missouri secretary of state today certified donald trump's win in the state's
republican primary. this adds 12 delegates to mr. trump, bringing his total from missouri to 37 delegates compared to senator ted cruz's 15. missouri republican primary was held on march 15 but it had been too close to call. in the meantime, "the new york times" reporting today that more than half of the negative spending on advertising has been directed at a single candidate, donald trump. the story says of the more than 132 million dollars spent on negative ads by candidates and the groups supporting them, nearly $70 million has gone to commercials asailing mr. trump, according to analysis of data providing by cantar media. here's a look at some of the ads featuring donald trump. >> he says we should punish women who have abortions. >> there has to be some form of punishment. >> that mexicans are rapists and we should ban muslims from coming here. >> total and complete shutdown. >> donald trump says we can solve america's problems by
turning against each other. it's wrong and it goes against everything new york and america stands for. >> with so much at stake, she's the one tough enough to stop donald trump. >> i'm hillary clinton and i approve this message. >> go boulder, push for a living wage that's higher. for tuition-free public college, justice that works for all. for a middle class that must be saved. you do. values. forged in new york. brooklyn born, native son who knows what we want. we're all in this together. >> i'm bernie sanders and i approve this message. >> and on today's "washington journal" -- we featured a roundtable discussion on the impact of money on american politics. >> washington journal continues. is theheila krumholz
executive director for the center for politics, and she joins us now as we continue our discussion on money in politics. explain what open secrets is in the work you do there. open secrets is the website for our organization. a nonpartisan nonprofit research advocate we transparency. if we cannot do it, if we do not have access, then the voters cannot do with a need to do to inform people and hold their elected officials accountable. on her website, you can find all kinds of information about where the money is coming from and going to and what quantities and what the trends are over time, how our campaign finance system is evolving and we tried to present the data so we can answer whatever questions people
have. we talked a lot about the citizens united case so far in the program. do, how the work you did that change after citizens united? guest: it has become far more difficulty or not only accept the data that is reported to the federal election commission and is provided to us, which is big enough in itself, because we are constantly gathering new data and standardizing it by organizations so we can present it in a lot of different ways in our website, we are also going to the filings of politically active nonprofits with the irs, and those are not filed frequently. when they are, we grab them and then we have to do the digging to find out where those groups are getting their money and much of that is simply not available. host: in terms of the number of groups you are tracking, can you give us a sense of the number
and how much that changed before citizens united and after? are hundreds of thousands of organizations represented in the data. these are based on contributions as well as individual donations which are itemized. going to candidates. the data we are getting on politically active nonprofits is a drop in the bucket by comparison but these other organizations that have really to the top in terms of the amount of money they are raising is pending and they can strikeit with laserlike on the most competitive races. they can have an enormous impact even though there are not nearly as many, with the hard money reported contribution going to candidates. super pac's, regular packs, 501 before groups, when you do your job to try to bring
transparency to the process, what is the toughest to crack there? guest: 501(c) nonprofit. charitable or a gift -- or educational organization's. these are organizations that are mostly not political. they have a limited ability to be political. 501(c) four's, social welfare organizations. along with the chamber of much morecan be political and some organizations, especially following citizens united, have been created, apparently to be and see itolitical to be violating the terms of tax-exempt rules to act like a political committee, which reports to the federal election commission, but pretend they are
social welfare organizations disclose that need not their donors. that is the crux of the matter. it is the real issue here. we have these organizations pertaining to be something they are not in order to deliver a secrecy to their sources. if you have questions about these groups and tracking money in politics, remember the house and senate campaigns going on, the phone lines are open in this segment. -- the 2016's get to cycle. what is the most interesting thing you are tracking? thing the most important to know is the incredible increase in funds raised and spent by outside organizations.
as well as super pac's, which are technically independent expenditure only committees. independently of those campaigns and use unlimited sums from unlimited sources to do that. many of thee is organizations are very closely tied to the candidates and staffed by top lieutenants and even created by the candidates themselves. enormous sums of money are gushing into and through the organizations and our target is one of the most competitive races, as well as competitive house and senate races. we are seeing already, $300 , six times spent what was spent at this point in the cycle in 2014 and three times the list then in 2012.
we see big increases and bigger injections of funds coming from reportedly independent groups -- instead of truly independent groups. have dry -- drive their funds, spend more than $21 million so far compared to the last presidential cycle. that is only if the patterns from 2012 from this point and that cycle, hold. host: when we hear the term dark money, that is what we are referring to. generally, politically active nonprofit organizations. most nonprofits are not politically active. research organizations like ours or a charitable organization. are advocating, they lobby on clean water or whatever the
issue may be. what we're seeing now is a strain of politically active nonprofits which are pushing, if not blowing past the line of political activity that has allowed them -- questions or comments about political fundraising, that individual candidates, we can walk you through that. website, open seat -- open secrets.org. pennsylvania, a republican, bill, good morning. caller: once again, i am first up in the conversation and is difficult to know where it is -- going.n general, in general, i am very concerned about smuch be made of money buying votes and all that sort of thing. the only thing that counts is what the vote actually was.
how did your legislator vote on specific measures? i do not care whether the guy is bought and paid for. i care about the way he votes and how that fits in with the way i think the government should go. finding who contributed what tells me nothing about sound policy, it tells me nothing about whether there is anything good or bad to the contributors point of view. it drives me nuts that the public is generally being told that the government is bribed without anyhings, ornection to the legislation the rules or the things that are actually done and whether or not
i agree with them. it just comes down to the voting record? yes.: yes -- caller: we spent all this time this morning on the subject, which -- it doests only if not count at all. what counts is what the government does. the more i go on the more frustrated i get. host: i appreciate the call. spend your was time looking into the money that goes into these campaigns. guest: i think we have had evidence that at times, money has been a very powerful force in washington and that is why corporations stands a much money to lobby congress and try to shape policies in the government. spent touch is being elect members who are going to represent the interests of those
donors. if those are the interests of those constituents, that is generally viewed as good. special narrow group of moneyed interests, then that puts a heavier burden both on legislators and the folks they represent to hold them accountable, to make sure that the money is not speaking louder than the merits of the policies they are deciding. i agree that money is not everything. money is simply one factor that the public and the press need to pay attention to her but it is a fascinating lens through which to look at washington. i think it is critical. while it is true that money is to sustain a candidate not otherwise viable, that does not good campaign organization and good connections in terms of their rapport with the voters, it is so youl to victory, and
cannot win without money. and that is why i think it bears scrutiny. lensesne of the clearest to look at it through, and the easiest to use his open lookts.org if you want to at their website as we talk about it in the second. iris is in michigan, and independence. good morning. caller: good morning to you all. god bless america. wondering when this noncompete policy will affect the government, so that when you leave government, you are done with government and you can't use your cloud or your power and go into these five are ones -- 501's, which seems to be a stepping stone into having more clout with the government then you had before, because now you have access. and why is politics of different from what we call the real world?
when are they going to match up with the people that actually employ them? are they supposedly working for us, not us for them? 1's,when you are in these 50 and you don't pay taxes, don't you have a different perspective on everything? we need to kind of cleanup the act and take it backed to what it was before the government 's forped these 501 themselves. i was just wondering what this young lady has to say about that, and god bless her. host: you want to start with the work you do to track that? guest: on open secrets, you can find a database called a revolving door database where you see personnel that have revolved out of government service into positions presenting private industry.
some of them are evolving into the super pac's to work as political operatives for these nonprofits. it's important to look at this because these are influential people who are bringing with often quite fresh contacts with powerful people in congress and in government, and ed whilee they develop in public service. they may leave the jobs for organizations board jobs is political operatives working for these super pac's and nonprofits intevac into government and bring with them the views and themests and bring with the views and of their employers. creatednot specifically by money, but money does play a role. in order to lower a senior , those to do lobbying
firms pay a premium because they can charge more to their clients to have that sort of shortcut on offer. door is anng important aspect of all this. i wanted to clarify the 501(c)'s are not themselves a trick, are nonprofits, and most of them, tens of thousands of these organizations do wonderful charitable work that is important to really the structure of our society. but what has happened is there has been a kind of variation, a strain of these groups that is not honoring the purpose of these organizations, and it's k enforcement and rules in order to act like political entities, which should be disclosing donors. host: the revolving door
database, you can see things like the feature revolver, the top agencies where people revolve through the database, ike the fact that there are 20 state or attorney general and the open secrets revolving door database. 's guide an washington, d.c., democrat. guest: thank you for this invaluable service. i was wondering if your guests at the opportunity to listen to the segment just before, especially christian birds united, anditizens her reaction would be to that. to her comments about the organizations that have been formed as a result of citizens united, is it that citizens united is not working as it was intended, or is that ok chris really -- opaqueness really part of the picture?
guest: unfortunately, i didn't hear the prior segments and i didn't hear that these the caller was mentioning. about citizens united and whether or not it's functioning as the decision was intended, it is not. in my view in the view of many others, the supreme court faced that decision on the present and that we had a functional for all ofregime these activities. when they opened the floodgates to any source contributing and spending any sum of money to advocate or oppose a federal candidate, they did not understand there was this massive loophole allowing these organizations to fly into the radar, to keep their donors secret, and in fact, to keep their spending secret. the rules make it very difficult
to both know who this is providing the original funding as well as what these organizations are doing. it's really a crazy quilt of rules and oversight agencies that come into play, and that is a major portion of our work now, in trying to make sense of all of the entities that are now participating in the system following citizens united. all of the public sources of information and crafting a website resource that allows people to really see what is happening. host: tennessee is next, tom is a republican. good morning. caller: i was just wondering. parenthoodlanned takes money from the government, and they donate to all the s that are running in
congress, senate, and everything else. have you ever checked into that? they are absolutely taking money from the taxpayers, supposedly. sudden, they of a are donating money to candidates that are actually on the democrat side. have you ever looked into that? i watched a lot of hearings on c-span about planned parenthood, and they're arguing over the taxpayers shouldn't be paying that money, and they are making money. and they are spending money on helping get democrats elected. i sure would like to hear your comments. thank you very much. pulling up planned parenthood from the database, go ahead. guest: thank you for that. parenthood's a very politically active organization and has been one for a long time. you can find a lot of information about them on her website, there's a pac donation
to members of congress and candidates for congress, as well as independent expenditures on behalf of or against candidates. i'm quite sure they lobby as well. you will find it different entry points in to learn about their activities in washington. i do want to point out that a group like that is really distinct from this new variation of nonprofits, which has cropped up following citizens united. which is not known -- many of these organizations use anodyne or patriotic sounding names. their mission is not to necessarily advocate a single issue like planned parenthood does, or like the nra does. those are legitimate social welfare organizations, they take a position and they are
politically active, but not primarily so. however, other organizations really exist for no other reason than to advocate on politics. limits,exceeding the which are themselves, quite lax in terms of how much money they can spend on politics. interestingat is an organization, because they are so politically active and they spend a lot of money. in 2014, the congressional cycle in 2014, here are the numbers. contributions, nearly $1.6 million in contributions, $679,000 of that going into individual candidates. contributions also the 527 committees and outside spending groups, the open secrets website breaks it all down for you. that one forycle,
$6 million in contributions ranked 169th out of the groups that were tracked. let's go to robin in greenville, tennessee. an independent. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. number my question is, one, i think citizens united was just a blender. -- a blunder. i think the people here in america have kind of woken up to all thesehat delegates and these different things -- what if we just have one vote, one person, and accounts -- it counts? i would like to know that my vote counts. host: how would you do that? caller: i would not have the electoral college, we just have all the states go to the primaries and vote. and elected president with your vote.
i would like to get some of the money out of this and i would also like to have term limits. host: robin, with her changes for the electoral system. corey is up next in chickamauga, georgia. a democrat, good morning. i do have a few questions, if you don't mind. do have a few questions, if you don't mind. one person,bout the one vote and everyone should have the opportunity to vote. my second question is the fundraising and campaign raising , due to the commercials in such . these companies the raise hundreds of millions of dollars for these foolish advertisements against one candidate or the other. when we're living in an economy like we are with so many people struggling, it seems like they
want to argue about an increase in minimum wage her. and yet, they are throwing so much money down the drain as far as foolishness, these advertisements give the negativity of the candidates. another thing is, like with campaign, that he focuses so much on his own money being spent. isthat money that he spending on his candidacy, is it not also tax-deductible? so he basically is making a payday for his running for president in the long run. that it is hard for people to step fact today. citizens today to hear all this stuff about these delegates, please bound delegates and all this other foolishness.
they go out and they stand in these lines for hours thinking they are doing something positive for the country, to make some changes. discouraged, hearing the the 20 come out tomorrow is by line that ise next going to come out tomorrow is owned by the way, there's another ruled plays a part in it and change the outcome. there is so much going on to where you really has upset a lot of people in today's society. people were already angry about things as far as the way governments run. but now, on top of that, we have all this other craziness with the campaign itself and people fueling the fire. i'm not going down on the media about it, as much as i am the candidates. host: i want to let sheila
krumholz weigh in. i want to show you the front page of the "washington times." donald trump blasting the colorado gop for running a rigged system is the headline. their concern about the rules in colorado after he was swept at last week's convention, when it comes to delegates for the republican national convention. that perhaps speaking to some of the rule concerns you were talking about. sheila krumholz, a lot covered there. guest: there's a lot to unpack. ishink one salient feeling there is just great concern for democratic integrity. the people don't trust that the system is functioning as it should. they don't feel and do not have access to information which should be public.
how can they make good decisions for themselves at the ballot box and in their own political engagement? how can they hold the representatives, their politicians, accountable if they don't know who is supplying the money for their campaign? is a bedrock principle. we must regain the transparency that the system used to provide. it will be up to people, voters, constituents to hold the representatives accountable and let them know they do care about access to this information and transparency. and to make them hold the oversight agencies accountable. host: the caller was particularly concerned about the ad spending and commercials. in the 2014 cycle, media spending by candidates -- these were just house and senate candidates -- media spending accounted for almost $1.3 billion. what do expect that number to get up to in the 2016 cycle?
guest: it's hard to make a production about media spending. -- a prediction about media spending. but that's a normal -- an enormous cost in presidential campaigns. during the early part of the cycle, the investments are on administration on setting up campaigns. once candidates are in place and have their organizations in place, the images or focus turns to communicating their messages in their platforms. that is enormously expensive and a huge payday for broadcast companies in particular. they can reap large sums of money, especially from outside, purportedly independent outsider information -- organizations like super pacs, that are running ads, some of the misleading, about the candidates.
allowedizations are not the lowest unit rate the candidates are allowed. there's a lot of play here. in advertising, certainly, as with the last presidential election, voters at home will be bombarded with messaging, again, much of it negative. that will be fueled by billions of dollars, spent not just by candidates and parties provide is less accountable outside groups. host: on twitter, inconceivable one makes the same point that the first caller was making. it may be that a candidate must have money support to be elected, but that doesn't mean money is controlling the election. ohio,s up next in marion, a republican. rich, good morning. caller: good morning. some great ideas. if we some points, shorten the election, we know one day is too short.
the way it is now is too long and we get all kinds of weird things happening. if we would shorten it, we limit the amount of money involved. the other thing is our four and agents -- foreign agents are corrupting the system. spending to mind corrupt our politicians. we have to look at that. armiesious about foreign , how much they are lobbying our government. in a company and act like a company, they are allowed to lobby our government. how much is lobby from china, russia, and cuba? and what happened with china in launching a multiple warhead attack on the united states. as satellites it that clinton help to get through, and now they sit with it, they can launch satellites or warheads. might be alast one
little out of our ballpark in this segment. on foreign contributions, what are the rules on that? guest: foreign governments, corporations, individuals are not allowed to make political contributions to contribute in our system. unless they are green card holders, residents of the united states. again, if we have a system whereby the money is secret and we cannot know where the money is coming from, we also can't the assured that it is domestic. we've had a foreign money scandal in the past, i don't know why people would think we are any less likely to have it now that money can be given anonymously. host: westfield, massachusetts is next, and independent, john is calling in. caller: good morning. i would like to make suggestion.
-- a suggestion. many of these topics that are being discussed, we are wasting our time. the only way we're going to stop this abomination is by education. -- history,ctorate forget about it. it's all math, science, go to the moon and so on. i think there's a candidate that i might have heard about that wants to do some thing about that. when you could get 75%, 80% of the electorate vote, people voting, we are going to have a lot of the different government. in a lot of these issues will be solved right there. host: who are you supporting in this election? caller: we can't afford it, but we can afford to fight numerous wars all over the world and so on. i'm sorry, what did you say? host: who are you supporting,
who is the candidate? caller: i think it might be a guy named sanders. john and westfield, massachusetts. billy is next in russellville, arkansas, republican. caller: good morning, little brother, good morning, little sister. i'm in arkansas, and i do say listeninga few people to could even point where the state of arkansas is. there was a citizen's united group that was against one of our campaign -- campaigned against one of our supreme court justices. wantid the koch brothers to be secret about what they are doing? why are they involved in arkansas politics? number two, i have always voted republican and i believe in less government. then all of a sudden, there are people doing secret things. why the secret about it if you feel that strong about it?
if you're going to campaign and give $500 million to get your agenda through, why would you not want someone to know what you are doing? i don't understand that, i don't understand why we allow that. is, on theing republican side, they are thatng about 1237 people are going to shape this election. you take $500 million and by 1237, they want me to believe that money is not going directly to somebody? how naïve do they think we are on the steel? -- on this deal? i've always supported republicans, but the only person by hear talking about the things i want to hear is bernie sanders. that's a long switch from republicans down to bernie. but that's the only one i hear talking about these things.
bernie, isupport believe that's the reason a lot of people are supporting bernie, other than the disinformation campaign. these citizens united people, not only are they directly try to influence supreme court justice in arkansas, but they are spewing out so much disinformation that you don't even know if it's the truth or if it's not the truth, or if it's close to the truth just a bald faced lie. host: i will let sheila krumholz jump in. glad you called, i really think that republicans in servedlar would be well that their members of congress understand their views on transparency. to me, this is not a partisan issue, it's a democratic issue. this form ofe government and have trust in our
process without knowing -- having access to information. if we want informed voters, if we want to engage voters, they need to be able to see where the money is coming from and going to, and other kinds of information that are important to their political engagement. we want everyone engaged, left, right, and center. ultimately, it takes the voters -- who holds the cards in their an issue, to make this in their campaigns and communicate that to their officeholders. host: intimacy, leeann is a democrat. good morning. -- you tennessee. caller: i was calling about this fundraiser. the only reason they are giving money to the senators who run and congressman are to get their idea over. they are buying their votes. i'm 65 years old, i'm in
tennessee, when it's time for us to go out to vote, there are so many machines in areas work. the next hour, the machines are out of order. it's been done for years and years. the only way can stop is that the citizens get out there and you pull that lever when you vote. big money can't control that. it's up to us to stop it. everybody, whether you're republican, democrat, or independent, please, get out and vote. vote, it's for your own interest. thank you. host: in lancaster, california, glenn, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the outside group, which is the media, which is -- which does not vet our people. we have a sitting senator with a dual citizenship from canada.
wondering if he ever voted in canada with his citizenship? if his mother renounced her citizenship to the united states so she could vote in canada? and what about -- my birth certificate has my footprints on .t and my handprints on it or we have seen no footprints or handprints from the media with barack obama. i'm not a birther, i'm a native american citizen. american citizen also. i hold dual citizenship. ruined,try is being trump wants to bring jobs backed and fix social security with bringing jobs backed to america.
the republican party is attacking trump because he is not controlled by the big banks like ted cruz and his wife. it's just a great big mess. host: birth certificates are not really what we're talking about in the segments, but your point attacked,p being there's a front-page story in the "new york times," about the amount of money that's going into anti-trump adds. us about thetell spending of the never trump movements, as it has been called? guest: you can find on our website all of the organizations that are both lining up to support him, as well as those that are attacking his candidacy. spending inh of the prior to primaries need not be reported to the federal election commission, if
it is for electioneering. it is a complicated system. a lot of these calls be to a lack of trust and a crisis of confidence, both in the party leadership, the current establishment, but also in the system and the structure of the system. we need people to comeback to the voting booth, because we have had such a dearth of voters in past elections. as well as to not leave it there but to get engaged on a more frequent basis and to make themselves heard. use our website, use other credible nonpartisan resources like open secrets to get informed. but don't stop there, get engaged. host: let's see if we can fit in bill on chicago, illinois. the line for democrats. caller: i find it very disturbing that candidates can refuse to answer questions like
-- i have considered myself a democrat. hillary.looking at she's telling people that it's not your business how much money on getting. -- i'm getting. i don't understand that, i'm for bernie. it's ridiculous that you can be running for president and tell people it's none of their business who you are getting money from. --see that happen in america it's been going on too long. thank you for letting me have my say. host: sheila krumholz at our last 30 seconds or so. on open secrets, you can find so much information about where the money is coming from fire industry and interest groups. for much is coming from individuals versus tax.
-- other other money money's that candidates of avail themselves over the years. the caller may be referencing the clinton foundation. their resources is closing information on that. -- there are resources disclosing information on that. i would caution callers about making -- conflating all of these kinds of moneys, not all of them are directly beneficial to the candidates. is important for the candidates to be forthright about. it does not serve their goals to not be fully transparent about where their money comes from. host: the website is open secrets.org. sheila krumholz is the >> madam secretary, we proudly
ive 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. >> well, the u.s. house is about to convene today. members expected to work on four small bills including companies that develop treatments for the company virus. another would penalize those who defraud veterans in attempt to get military benefits. the other bills deal with ghobal food security and bankruptcies. and then later this week,
southwest border security and internet access. after a few short speeches, the house is expected to recess until 4:30. and now to live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempe: the houe wilbe or, the chailays before the e a ommunation from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker'rooms, washington, d.c. april 12, 20. i heby appoint the honorable blake farenthold t acas speaker proempore on this day. signed, paul dyan, speaker of the house of representatives the speaker pro tempore the ay wille offered by o chapla, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pra dearord of mercywe give you anks for givings another day. at the beginning of a new wowe, wee this moment to
be reminded oyourresence and to tap the reurces needed by the members of this people's house to do their work as well as it can be done. we ask that u send your ho spirit upo them, giving em the gifts of patience and dilince. with all the pressures, conrns, and worri that accompany eir responsibilities, we pray tt th migh know your peace which surpasses all human erstanding. y your voice spto them in the depths of their hear, illumiting theirinds and spirits, thus enabling them t view the tasks of this day wi confidence and pe. althis d and rough the week may they do their best to find solutions to the pressing issuefacing our nation. y allhat is ne this day be for your grear honor and glor amen.
the speaker pro tempore: e chaihas examinethe journal of the last y's proceedis d announces to the house his approval thereof. pant to clau 1 of rule 1, the j standproved. the pledge of allegiance will be now be led bthe gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. mr. coffman: join me in th pledge. i pledge allegiance tohe f of the united stas america and to the republic for which it stan, one nation uer god, indivisible, with liberty and juice for all. the speaker p temporee chair wow entertain quests for one-nute spches. or what purpo doe the gentleman from west vginia se recognition > unanimous consent to address e house. the speaker pro tempore: without jection, the gentleman recognized r one minute. >>r. speaker, thear on coal is a reality in west viinia. let me introduce tyou kevin altice, from mount hope. heescres himself as a former coal miner, why?
because he lost his job just a few months ago. he is now going ck to school, but woies about his flo ners trying to find jobs. kevin is a wes virginia coal voice. here's what he wroteo me. lot of coal workers have had tmove out of state for emplment, a sad trend tt needs to stop. luckily wife is school acher which helpon our ine, b we have en how e downurn the coal indury has even impacted our daon sstem. we in west virginia ae in dire times and something needs to be done to protect our futur that ken'y. we cannot forget about providineducation and retraining for ighs meaners. my bill,he assisting act, will help providner retraining opportunitiefor moreiners like kn. our coal miners are worki providor their families
they need is a chance i yield b the speer pro tempo: the ntleman's meas eired. for what purpo does the gentleladym north carolina eek recognition? withoutbjtion, so orded, the gentlewoman is recognized fornminute. >> mr. speaker,more than five decades have passedince we signed the equal pay la into --qual pay act into law,ut in 2016 women sll make 79 cents to t dollar th their male couerparts mak. . adams:worseor women of color. afn-amic women earn0 cents and lats ea 55 nts for eryollar earned by men the joint economicommittee which i'm proud t serve, foud wom lose out on more than $50000 throughout thr career, and thisage gap continues to hurt women when hey retire. e media income for women 65 and olds 44%. lthan that of men in the same group. every congres for nearly 20
years, conesswoman ra delauro has introduced the paycheck faiess act. i'm thankful for her leadership anproud to join her as a -sponsor ofthe bill because not goino stay while north colina womenake just 82 cents for every dollar earnedmen. oday on equal payy, i call on my colleagues to st shortcnging women and our families. l's ps the paycheck fairss act i yield back. the eaker pro tempore: th gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose do the gentleman fom coloradseek recognition? mr. con: mr. speaker, i rise to ask unanimous connt to ass the house f one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the eaker pro teore: wihoection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. m coffman: thank you, mr. speaker. i ris todayo congratulate the thundeidge hh ol girls' varsity basketbalteam on their stunning 5-a state championshi win over highlands ranch high school. they came out strong to clinch eir fouh straight ampionsh in a dominating
47-32 victory. it was a game of defensive tenacity. the score held strong at 6-4 in the sixth minute of the game. something that coach matthew ingrained in his team's game plan saying that, quote, if we play good defense, we can always be in the game, unquote. senior jasmine put 16 points on the board and hustled for 18 rebounds in the final game. which earned her the well deserved title of tournament m.v.p. this was a thrilling game between two highland ranch powerhouses. i'm so proud of these two teams for representing the sixth congressional district of colorado and the title game. congratulations to both teams on a stellar season. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the
gentleman is recognized for one mifpblet >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to commemorate national library week and to celebrate how local libraries continue to be a vital resource in communities across the nation. mr. foster: libraries have evolved beyond buildings of quiet study into engaging community centers where people can gather to collaborate on projects, children can come to participate in educational activities, and job seekers can use as a resource for help in finding connection was employers. national library week is a perfect opportunity to highlight the services being provided in libraries, by librarians and staff focused on creating environments where people cannot only find the information they need but use that information to better themselves and their communities. counting both public and private, there are nearly 120,000 libraries across the united states which together employ more than 350,000 people
and provide service foss millions of americans -- services to millions of americans each year. in my district i have seen this transformation take place where access to the latest technologies like 3-d printers and laser cutters and video editing centers can often be found at the local library. libraries across the contrin continue -- country continue to serve as centers for research and community development and i extend my thanks to the staff. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. extend and revise my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize mr. welch for his success in business and his dedication to making the savannah community a better place to live. mr. carter: he's the definition of a self-made man whose hard work launched a career in the car business that grew into a large and prominent enterprise.
throughout his life, mr. welch has been committed to giving back. he's a devout catholic who supports many projects in the diocese of savannah, not the least of which is his alma mater. in 2012, he used a super bowl commercial to offer a reward for information regarding an unsolved murder of a volunteer firefighter. it led to the arrest and conviction of the killer. in the years since, mr. weapon much has not waivered in his crusade against crime in our community. more recently he took up the calls of his beloved bacon park golf correspond where he got his forrest job. after seeing the once pristine course call into disrepair, he invested millions to restore its historic donald ross design and rightful place in the community. these are only a few examples of the incredible impact that mr. welch has had and i rise today to thank him for his continued commitment to our community. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from north carolina
seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to recognize dr. anthony atalla, director of the wake forest institute of regenerative medicine. he's the leader of a team of scientist at wake forest baptist medical center who proved the feasibility of using a sophisticated custom design 3-d printer to create living tissue structures to replace injured or diseased tissue in patients. the team has been ablele to print ear, bone, and muscle structures that when implanted in animals were able to mature into functional tissue and develop a system of blood vests -- vessels. early results indicate the structures have the right size, strength, and function for use in humans and the team aims to
implant bioprinted muscle cartilage and bone in patients in the future. we are fortunate to have him and his team conducting this pioneering research that may change the face of modern medicine in north carolina's fifth district. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:30 today.
both will be able to provide you an update on traditional information we have learned about this virus and the risk it imposes to the american public. they'll also be able to provide us additional information about the funding request that the administration put forward to the united states congress a couple months ago. as we discussed in the briefing last week, we have not seen the kind of response from congress that we would expect. and frankly we haven't seen the response from congress that is clearly in the interest of the safety and well-being of the american people. so both dr. schuchat and dr. fauci should be able to provide insight into how the resources will be used. each will make a brief opening statement and then for questions on this topic we'll do those at the top so they can answer them. we'll let them go and we can discuss the wide array of other topics likely to come up today. dr. schuchat, over to you first
. dr. schuchat: thanks so much. a pleasure to be here today. since we last discussed the zika virus, we continue to be learned pretty much every day. most of what we are learning is not reassuring. we have learned that the virus is linked to a broader set of omplications in pregnancy, not -- prematureity, eye problems. we have learned the mosquito investigator -- vektor is present in a broader range of states in the continental u.s. so instead of about 12 states where the mosquito is present, we believe about 30 states have the mosquito present. we have also learned that the virus is likely to be a problem at much of the pregnancy period, not just probably the first trimester, but potentially throughout the pregnancy. this information is of course
of concern and c.d.c.'s been working 24/7 to protect pregnant women. to support the state and local health departments that are that frontline of defense, to learn as much as we can about the mosquito that can spread the virus and the virus itself. and to work with other countries to learn what we may be sealing later in the continental u.s. we are quite concerned about puerto rico where the virus is spreading throughout the island. we think there could be hundreds of thousands of cases of zika virus in puerto rico and perhaps hundreds of affected babies. we know that the pregnant women in puerto rico are very keen to protect themselves and to have community protection and we are working closely with the authorities in puerto rico to support that response with mosquito control beginning and with the distribution of what we call zika prevention kits for pregnant women. we have learned that mosquito transmission is the usual way the virus can spread, but it
also appears to be spread through sexual transmission. and that has meant we have had to issue an updated guidance for couples on how to prevent spread to virus, particularly to pregnant women. the other thing we have learned is that there is a resounding interest in preventing this disease and controlling it as well as we can. last week -- on april 1, the c.d.c. and u.s. government convened zika action plan summit in atlanta. leader from more than 30 states and territories joined in atlanta to do zika action planning to get ready for mosquito season. there's a lot to do to increase laboratory diagnostic testing, to increase mosquito surveillance, to increase human surveillance, and birth defects surveillance and improve our communication so people have the best information to protect themselves and their families. so that's what's been going on since we talked a couple weeks
ago and i'll turn things over to dr. fauci. dr. fauci: thank you very much, anne. in a similar vein since we spoke last at the same week the c.d.c. had their summit in atlanta, we had a research meeting on monday and tuesday of that same week right in rockville in north bethesda. to underscore what was said, we are learning more and more about this. i'll give you a very brief summary about that. the more and more we learn, the more and more you get concerned about the scope of what this virus is doing. bottom line is we still have a lot to learn. the first thing was a very important study at the very fine molecular level looking at the virus and seeing if it was any different from dengue. keep we keep asking, it's transmitted by the same mosquito, what's the difference? it looks very much the same mow lack cue larly except there is a short small one of amino acids, the building blocks of
protein, part of the virus that binds to cells. it may be that that's the clue of why it acts different, particularly being neuro tropic or having a propensity to affect neurological tissue. good news we developed new animal models since we spoke last and again the mouse models underscore what dr. schuchat said. when you infect a mouse there is a very strong propensity to infect neurological tissue. we developed a monkey model, which is interesting, because you can get a monkey pregnant and look at the difference in the vie suss of a pregnant monkey and one who is not. what we have seen, this is preliminary data, but it's quite scintillating, the virus stays around the blood significantly longer in the pregnant monkey than it does in the nonpregnant monkey. the reason that's important you might remember we had a case here of a washington resident who was infected during pregnancy, infected the fetus, d that person had weeks of
viremia which is unusual. again the neurological issues are important. in vitro studies of getting the virus and putting it in neurostem cells show it has a very strong propensity to destroy dish shoe which could explain why besides interfering with the development of a fetus it might directly attack brain tissue, even when the fetus is later on in the period of gestation. we also are continuing with the vaccine studies i mentioned to you. i told you we would very likely have our first vaccine candidate in phase one in september. that looks like it's on time. we are producing it in our pilot plant outside of bethesda and we'll be processing it to be able to get it through the f.d.a. to put into a human. then finally, we have a screening program for drugs that i mentioned to you. we hadn't screened any drugs the last time we spoke. we have now screened about 62 drugs and have 15 of them that have some degree of activity.
caution, that doesn't mean they are going to turn out to be good drugs, but they do have activity. in summary, a lot of things have gone on. things that are pointing to serious issues we need to address, but we have learned an awful lot since we spoke next. we do need to learn more because this is a very unusual virus that we can't even pretend we know everything about that we need to know. thank you. >> you specialed there to be hundreds of thousands of cases in puerto rico, do you have a prediction for a range of how many you expect in the united states broadly? dr. schuchat: most of our predictions come with what we saw with dengue virus, spread by the same mosquito. in puerto rico they range between 25 and 80% of the population getting infected with one or the other of those viruses over the course of one or multiple seasons. in the continental u.s., those
-- we have seen travel associated cases of dengue. we haven't seen large numbers. we haven't seen thousands of cases of locally transmitted disease from the mosquitos. we have seen dozens of cases. we have absolutely need to be ready. as dr. fauci was saying, everything we look at with this virus seems to be scarier than initially thought. while we absolutely hope we don't see widespread local transmission in the continental u.s., we need the stadse to be ready for that. that was part of what our summit was about. learning all they could about mosquito control, what do we know? what do we not know? what can we do with the tools we have today? and how to get ready for mosquito season. when they have a case of travel associated, how to look around that individual for the mosquitos nearby. we want the traveling public when they come back fromlele it the caribbean or latin america to use repellent for the couple weeks after they return because if they silently got zika infection and they get bit by a mosquito in the continental
u.s., that mosquito can spread the virus. i don't expect there to be large outbreaks in the continental u.s. i can't give a number to how many cases, but i can say that we can't assume we are not going to have a big problem. we know with other viruses we have had bigger problems than we expected. e are taking this seriously. what we know from the other viruses, the 25% to 80% of the population that may get the infection, we know for instance in puerto rico they are having dengue virus as well as the zika virus at the same time. so that makes it even more difficult to tease out what's causing a person's fever and rash. i would say that in latin america we know they are at risk for very high attack rates of the virus. in temples pregnant women, we don't know yet when you have -- in terms of pregnant women, we don't know yet when you have zika virus in pregnancy. what percent of the time the baby will be totally normal and when there could be a
complication? that's one of the most important questions for us to answer and teams are working in colombia, brazil, and panama trying to answer that question. >> dr. fauci, two for you. one, can you tell me more about the zika prevention kits and what that entails. and for dr. schuchat, how concerned should american athletes be that may be traveling to brazil, especially as the olympics come. are we working on something specifically for americans? i guess i should ask you another one about resources. are you confident that you have hat you need to maintain this? dr. fauci: i'll answer that question. the answer is i don't have what i need right now. what i have done is take money rom other areas of nonzika research to start. we couldn't just stop and wait for the money. we had to go ahead for it. the only trouble is if we don't
get the money the president has asked for, we can't take it to the point where we have accomplished what we need to do. the answer is we don't have what we need but we are still going full blast by drawing money from other areas. that's how we started. the money that's being transferred over from ebola accounts will help bring us further, but it's still not what we want. when the president asked for $1.9 billion, we needed that. dr. schuchat: the zika prevention kits are being given out to pregnant women in the areas where the virus is already spreading. in puerto rico, u.s. virgin islands, american samoa there have been about 5,000 kiths kits distributed. they include insect repellent. they include information about how women can protect themselves. they include condoms because we know that the virus can be spread sexually not just through mosquitos. they include vouchers for screening materials to help people make sure the mosquitos
stay outside the home and not inside. and those sorts of things. we actually initially were considering putting in some treated clothing, but then some of our surveillance for mosquito resistance in puerto rico revealed that probably isn't effective. we didn't end up including that kind of treated clothing. but they are essentially materials and information to help women protect themselves. in terms of the athletes, we know the olympics is just a wonderful event and athletes have been training for their whole lives to go there. we want to make sure people know if they are pregnant they should defer travel. we also want people to know that travel to the area may be -- may lead to silent infections or infections with symptoms and that following infections, it's very important to take precautions during sex not to spread the virus. so that type of information has been shared with the olympic committee and of course the c.d.c.'s working closely with the olympic medical committee bout further advice.
>> are you concerned that by transferring the money from the already appropriated funds that reduces the urgency on congress to appropriate new funds? dr. fauci: it shouldn't. as i said it is not enough for us to get the job done. it's a temporary stopgap. if you look at what we need to do both at the c.d.c. and at the n.i.h., we have a lot of work to do. and that may in some people's minds kind of lessen the intensity of it, but in our minds it doesn't because we still don't have enough to do hat we need to do. dr. schuchat: we also feel a sense of urgency about ebola and the global health security agenda. ebola is still circulating in liberia and guinea and many of the vulnerable countries in africa are having outbreaks. we know that we have to be as a country ready to support response to more than one outbreak at a time. that's really important.
so we are working as quickly and deeply as we can on the zika response while continuing to support ebola response and ecovery. >> mosquito forecast, any way of knowing if there's going to be a worse year than usual for mosquitos in general? and also, what are you telling travelers, people going to some of these countries and returning. should they be tested? where can it be done? dr. schuchat: the issue of mosquito surveillance and prediction is a great quefment one of the problems in the past decade is we have let our mosquito control efforts wither awafmente we don't have the great information that we'd like to have or even the ability to do better modeling about where in the country the problems are going to be and when they might occur. so strengthening mosquito surveillance before you have to get human disease is a priority
for us. so that that is something that we are working on. i think with more research we could do a better job. forgetting what the second part of the question was. testing people, right. we do think if you come back from an area where zika is tread spreading and you're pregnant, we recommend that you be tested whether you were symtomatic or not. we recommend testing in the first trimester and again in the third. in terms of people who don't have symptoms, we don't think they need to be tested, but we think that who aren't pregnant, but we think they need do need to take precautions with sexual contact, particularly in terms of sex with a pregnant woman. so we have put out updated guidance on that. we know a lot of couples were asking, i'm not pregnant but i want to get pregnant. how long do i have to wait? we put out guidance on that as well about waiting an eight week period following travel before trying to conceive for women. and waiting a longer period for men who have symptoms or -- in terms of the potential that men
can have persistent virus in the seman. >> do you think these tips would be useful in the mainland united states? also do you have any projection on the spread of the zika virus in puerto rico? to dr. fauci, what happens when the stopgap runs out? dr. schuchat: we do think the kits may be helpful in some parts of the u.s. there was a lot of interest in them from the state hept departments that attended. one of the issues to consider is living conditions. do people have screens, air conditioning? we heard parts of key west it's similar to puerto rico. people like the window open and that breeze. that idea from protecting yourself from mosquitos living in the house can be relevant. we've nd question -- got a team working closely in puerto rico trapping mosquitos and looking at where the
mosquitos are that are potentially of concern. they are also testing for resistance. the human surveillance. we are seeing in multiple parts of the island. it may be that the cases we are seeing reported are just a small percentage because we think some people can be asymptomatic and the only people being tested right now are people who come in with symptoms. we are seeing it increasing across the island and we are worried as it gets warmer it will be islandwide. dr. fauci: i can't imagine we are not going to be given the money when we reach the point when every time we come in front of you we tell you things that are more serious. if we reach the point where the stopgap money runs out, again, hopefully that will never happen, but we would have to start raiding other accounts. and very important research on other diseases is going to suffer. and suffer